A Stitch in Haste

Hillary Clinton faces a conundrum.

She of course wants to run for President in 2008. Apparently many Democrats want her to run too, although why is not entirely clear.

In any case, she faces a pesky little problem: her Senate term expires in 2006. And, for now, she says she only wants to talk about that.

The former first lady and her top aides steadfastly maintain that her focus is on winning a second Senate term. In fact, they have stopped talking publicly about the White House and 2008.

Now I doubt she would, without more, lose a re-election bid, especially given the utterly dysfunctional condition of New York State’s so-called Republican Party (“RINO Party” would be a better appellation).

But there’s that problematic 2008 presidential election again. Is it fair, honest and ethical to run for a six-year Senate term if you know that you’re running for President starting almost the day you’re sworn in?

The short answer is: well yes it’s ethical if New Yorkers decide that it’s ethical. If she is open and forthright about her plans, and New Yorkers say “fine by us,” then who is anyone else to say such maneuvers are wrong?

But the key words are “open and forthright.” Clinton should be nailed down, precisely and unequivocally, on this question during her Senate re-election campaign: Is she or is she not running for President in 2008? (Also, would she accept the Vice President nomination if it played out that way?).

No “maybes.” No “I have no plans.” No “It’s premature for that.” Yes or no -- is she running?

Some may argue that she does not deserve to be re-elected unless the answer is “No.” Perhaps. But this much is clear: She does not deserve to be re-elected if she refuses to give a clear answer one way of the other.

The so-called Republican Party in New York must not relent on this question. Nor should the media.

New Yorkers (I was not among them) gave Clinton qua carpetbagger one free pass. She does not deserve a second.

I'm always extremely distrustful of polls, but given my previous post on Hillary Clinton as a 2008 presidential candidate, I thought I'd pass this along:

The majority of New York voters said Hillary Rodham Clinton deserves to be re-elected to the Senate next year, but want her to pledge to serve a full, six-year term if she runs, a statewide poll reported Thursday.

The Democratic former first lady made such a pledge in 2000 when she ran for the Senate. Clinton, leading in the polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has yet to offer such a pledge this time around.

As I blogged previously:

Clinton should be nailed down, precisely and unequivocally, on this question during her Senate re-election campaign: Is she or is she not running for President in 2008? (Also, would she accept the Vice President nomination if it played out that way?). No “maybes.” No “I have no plans.” No “It’s premature for that.” Yes or no -- is she running?

It seems many New Yorkers agree with me.

The Washington Post is reporting that aides to Senator Clinton, who is up for re-election in 2006, have indicated that she will not commit to serving out a full second Senate term (which of course she couldn't do if she plans to run for president in 2008).

In 2000, she repeatedly pledged that she would finish her term without seeking the presidency. Aides say she will not issue such a pledge this time.

But is "not issuing a pledge" the same as "announcing her candidacy for president"? It should be.

As I blogged previously:

Clinton should be nailed down, precisely and unequivocally, on this question during her Senate re-election campaign: Is she or is she not running for President in 2008? (Also, would she accept the Vice President nomination if it played out that way?). No "maybes." No "I have no plans." No "It's premature for that." Yes or no — is she running?

I did not vote for Clinton in 2000, will not vote for her in 2006 and will oppose her candidacy for president should she choose to run.

But even with a candidate whom I might otherwise endorse, I don't think I could bring myself to support someone who could not commit to a full term or who couldn't at least be honest and forthright with voters.

It will be up to New Yorkers to decide whether they will let themselves be used and abused by this carpetbagger with the grand ambitions.

Clinton is undeniably an "activist politician." It remains to be seen whether New Yorkers will become an "activist electorate," or mere sheep to be shorn.

Jeanine Pirro is being expelled from has dropped out of the 2006 New York Senate race against Hillary Clinton.

Anyone else sense that history is repeating itself?

Whatever. Clinton will of course win regardless of who opposes her.

My only observation is that, once again, New York Governor George Pataki has screwed his own state Republican Party by prematurely racing to endorse Pirro's candidacy, thereby blocking-and-tackling any other potential candidates. Not wise.

As for Clinton herself, I repeat my challenge from this thread: Is she willing to state, before the 2006 election, that she unequivocally is or is not running for president in 2008? New Yorkers have a right to know.

On the other hand, New Yorkers also have a responsibility to demand that yes-or-no answer from her. Otherwise, they have no one but to blame if she ends her carpetbagger tenure prematurely.

More thoughts at California Yankee.

A leading figure in gay New York politics has called "Shenanigans!" on Senator Hillary Clinton:

A gay-themed fund-raiser for Clinton is being planned for March 10, and her staffers have been asking well-to-do gays to host the event.

In a Feb. 10 e-mail to members of the board of the Empire State Pride Agenda, executive director Alan Van Capelle branded Clinton a "complete disappointment [who] does not deserve [a gay] fund-raiser." He's refusing to lend his name to sell tickets to the bash.

"This year, Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson, Alan Hevesi, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, Sean Maloney and others are running for statewide office and are in favor of marriage equality for gays and lesbians," he said.

"When our struggle is over, they will be recorded as being on the right side of history and, as of now, Hillary Clinton will not be with them."

Sounds about right. I would of course take it a step further. Since Clinton likes to pretend that she was some sort of "co-president" with her pervert husband, I think gays should demand a public apology for "her" Administration having signed federal DOMA into law, not to mention Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Solomon Amendment. She should publicly apologize, publicly condemn her husband and demand that he publicly apologize.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Oh, and why the "sorta kinda" qualifier in the title of this post?

Despite his criticism, Van Capelle said he'll vote for Clinton.

Ah yes, gay Democrats -- the political equivalent of packing peanuts.

POST SCRIPT: For those keeping score, New York's other "gay rights hero," Democratic Senator Chuck E. Cheese Schumer, voted in favor of DOMA when he served in the House of Representatives. Like I said -- packing peanuts.

So Hillary Clinton wants to create a "privacy czar" to protect our privacy rights.

A few hasty stitches.

--Most of her proposals as they apply to credit reports already exist. Those that don't -- requiring free annual credit reports and creating a "credit freeze" option -- are: (a) costly, (b) apparently not now in sufficient demand for the market to generate them, and (c) not sufficiently sweeping to warrant the label "major policy proposal" one way or the other.

--Senator Clinton, a former trial lawyer, wants to make it clear that people, with help from trial lawyers, have a right to sue -- well, everyone -- if their information is stolen or abused. Go figure.

--Senator Clinton's "privacy bill of rights" does not assert that spying on American citizens on American soil without a warrant is in any way improper. In fact, it says nothing about the NSA, warrantless wiretapping or data-mining of phone recordsat all. Go figure.

--Her "privacy czar" would be part of the Office of Management and Budget. Does anyone seriously believe for a moment that either the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Defense is going to give any kind of a damn about what a paper-pusher at OMB thinks about, well, anything?

--Did creating a "drug czar" in any way help combat the War on Drugs? Or how about the "AIDS czar"? Can you even name our "drug czar" or "AIDS czar"?

--Senator Clinton wants to guarantee our medical privacy rights. Like the right of same-sex couples to be married so as to ensure their ability to make major medical decisions for each other without the legal complexities of living wills and powers of attorney? No? Go figure.

There's a word for people like Hillary Clinton:

Politician.

Dear Senator Clinton:

Regarding your new-found desire to court gay voters:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly jumped into the struggle for insurance benefits for thousands of same-sex partners -- a move that is likely to cool some of the heat she's been getting from the gay community for opposing same-sex marriage.

Clinton is among a handful of co-sponsors of Sen. Joe Lieberman's 11th-hour measure providing family benefits to federal workers' domestic partners.

Under the Connecticut Democrat's proposal, same-sex partners would be eligible for benefits if they are in a committed relationship, live together and share responsibility for each other's welfare.

It's very easy and convenient, not to mention fleeting and futile, to piggyback onto another senator's bill and then trumpet yourself as a champion of gay rights.

You may be selling, but we're not buying.

If you want to beg forgiveness for your repeated selling out -- as most Democrats do -- of gays, if you want to erase your and your party's record of taking the gay vote for granted while stabbing us in the back, then you need to do a bit more than offer up some tertiary garnish:

--Call for full and immediate marriage equality for gays.

--Publicly apologize for, and condemn, your and anyone else's call for "leaving it up to the states." Denial of equal rights is just as damnable at the state level as at the federal level.

--Publicly apologize for, and condemn, your pervert husband's signing into law of the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Act, Don't Tell, and immediately introduce or co-sponsor legislation repealing both. (Incidentally, has it occurred to you that federal DOMA may very well prohibit your proposed extension of federal insurance benefits to same-sex couples?)

That would be a good start. In the meantime, stop wasting our time with hollow campaign-season gobbledygook.

Respectfully,
--A constituent.

P.S. Most people who have websites intended to convey information include a search feature. Your website does not. So I can't be 100% certain. But based on my best efforts to scan your site, the word "gay" does not appear anywhere. Not once. The silence is deafening.

Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech to the Human Rights Campaign on Friday.

Of course, if your only source of news about Clinton were her Senate or campaign websites, then you would never have known about it.

Clinton aides said no announcement was made because the group's gathering is traditionally closed to the press. Video of the speech was posted on the group's Web site.

[An HRC executive] said such annual board meetings have always been closed to the press, but it was the first time he could remember that a speech at such a meeting had been made public afterward.

"There's no contradiction," he said. "The event is always closed to the press and we wanted to make (the remarks) available for people to see."

Yeah right. The fact that the HRC meeting was closed to the press in no way precludes Clinton from posting the text of the speech on her website or issuing a press release after the fact. She is deliberating trying to mute the mike when it comes to showing support for gays. Nothing new there.

---

From the speech that dare not speak its name:

Clinton also said she opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency.

But not opposed enough to actually sponsor a bill in the Senate to repeal DADT. Go figure.

This is especially obnoxious given:

1. It was her pervert husband who gave us DADT (not to mention federal DOMA).

2. Clinton serves on the Armed Services Committee, where such a bill would be evaluated.

3. Much fanfare was heralded just last week about the House version of such a bill being re-introduced.

There's a word for ambitious, manipulative, disingenuous females like Hillary Clinton:

Politician.
(What word did you think I was going to use?)

More thoughts at Good As You, Pam's House Blend.

---

Meanwhile.

I guess this isn't covered by McCain-Feingold either:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to help one-time candidate Tom Vilsack, who endorsed her on Monday, as he seeks to retire a campaign debt of more than $400,000.
...
"There was no quid pro quo," [a Clinton spokesperson] said.

No, of course there wasn't. Why should anyone suspect such a thing? Surely the principle of "looks-walks-quacks like a duck" has no relevance here. Right?

Just like how there was no quid pro quo when Marc Rich bought for $1 million received via no quid pro quo a pardon from Clinton's pervert husband, literally in the last hours of his administration.

Could you imagine the entire federal government bought and sold administered by Hillary Clinton as though it were the Lincoln Bedroom? Could you imagine health care — all health care — being turned into her personal plaything?

All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives — though some are clearly more defective than others.

Although Hillary Clinton undoubtedly ranks as the most divisive of the Democratic candidates (and perhaps the third most divisive person in America behind George W. Bush and Rosie O'Donnell), one would think -- hope -- that her supporters and detractors could at least agree on some historical absolutes that occasionally bubble up from beneath the unresolved questions of her past:

Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman, pointed to previous reports on some of the elements in the [Clinton biographies] to make the point that there was nothing new. "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news," he said. He added: "Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

One of the most astonishing successes of "Clinton 2008" has been her campaign's ability to blank-out the absolute emptiness of "Clinton 2000" and "Clinton 2006." In other words, it is remarkable how everyone, friend and enemy alike, has overlooked the irrefutable fact that Hillary Clinton has never, not once, faced a significant election battle. Until now.

Besides the fact that there are 60% more registered Democrats than Republicans in New York State, do we really need to dredge the archives to recall the crippled, last-minute, slap-dash campaign by Rick Lazio in 2000 and then the pitiful, pathetic and downright painful campaign by Jeanine Pirro in 2006?

Come on, a well-financed border collie could have quashed these two political puffsters, let alone the Clinton Carpetbagger Complex. The 2000 and 2006 Senate elections were, literally, jokes. Once Rudy Giuliani withdrew from the 2000 Senate race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer (another remarkable blank-out nowadays), the New York Republican Party curled up under its desk in a political fetal position and has been comatose ever since. As another example, look how easily ultra-liberal (and lifelong Democrat) Michael Bloomberg was able to co-opt and corrupt the New York GOP for the sake of pursuing his own political ambitions.

Hillary Clinton sought out the safest, least challenging, most easily manipulated Democratic electorate in the country to launch this final leg of the proposed Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton political vaudeville. That may in and of itself reflect a political savvy of some sort on her part. But it certainly does not reflect any track record of being a skilled campaigner.

From Sunday's Democratic joint press conference*:

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, the question was: Was your husband's decision to allow this "don't ask/don't tell" policy to go forward — he was president of the United States; he could have changed it — was it a mistake?

CLINTON: No, it was an important first step, Wolf.

That, as Christina said to Mommie Dearest, is a lie:

Throughout his 1992 campaign and the first days of his presidency, Bill Clinton pledged to end the ban on gays in the military. Facing vehement congressional opposition, he shifted his position in July 1993, when he announced "don't ask, don't tell."

Advocate reporter Chris Bull noted that Clinton's policy "sparked protests in cities throughout the country, and gay legal groups vowed to quickly prepare lawsuits to challenge it." Torie Osborn, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director at the time, called it "a repackaging of discrimination."

Bill Clinton broke a campaign promise -- end of discussion. It was not a "first step." It was not a "compromise." He compromised on nothing except his ethics — something he became very, very good at as his presidency progressed.

Meanwhile, if Hillary Clinton has become so much the politician that she simply no longer understands the difference between "breaking a campaign promise and "an important first step;" if she has become so much the moral defective that she can no longer distinguish between the simplest manifestations of "truth" and "lie," then what will become of us if she is elected president?

---

*Words have meaning, including the word "debate." What happened Sunday night was not a "debate."

---

My only other hasty stitch about the joint press conference is to express my not-new indignation over seeing the four sitting senators hypocritically raising their hand in the unanimous "let's abolish DADT" lovefest. If Biden, Dodd, Obama and Clinton are all so yippee-ki-yay to abolish this abomination, then why haven't any of them actually introduced a bill in the Senate to do so? Recall that the House version already exists (although it is languishing in committee) — all any Senator has to do is introduce the same text. So far: bupkes.

Clinton of course gets triple-damned above and beyond Dodd, Obama and Biden, not only for her dyspeptic "Bill was a champion for gays" revisionism, but also because she sits on the Armed Services Committee — precisely where a DADT repeal bill would be debated and where she would be uniquely positioned to champion it — if she truly wanted to.

More thoughts on the debate, the debaters and their all-talk-no-walk blather from Caucus, Republic of T., Politico, Outright Libertarians, PHB, Citizen Crain.

Has Clinton been channeling Marx and Engels?

---

Also, is she sending negative YouTube comments to the cyber-gulag?

---

Speaking of sorta kinda communists, it really doesn't make much sense for indignant gays to protest the Russian government (for its recent participation in, and complacency toward, the barbaric treatment of gays in that country) by boycotting a private company — especially one that sponsors gay events. (Incidentally, where are the boycotters going to get the Stolichnaya vodka to symbolically pour in the gutter other than to buy it from the company? Yup, that will sure teach them a lesson!) (Via Good As You.)

Who do you think wrote this:

Clinton's claim that DOMA was passed so it could help defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) eight years later is absolutely false. As we all know, the FMA wasn't really a threat until 2002, and the two pieces of legislation had distinctly separate origins. While having DOMA on the books might have been a factor in the FMA's defeat, it was passed for political reasons in an election year. In fact, after proclaiming to the community how painful it was for him to sign it, President Clinton's reelection campaign had ads up in the South touting the legislation within two weeks!

a) A member of the "vast right-ring conspiracy."

b) A supporter of one of Clinton's Democratic opponents.

c) A Bill Clinton friend and former campaign strategist.

Answer here. (Via here.)

To review: There are only three "dials to fiddle with" in addressing the Social Security crisis:

1. cut / curtail benefits


2. raise the retirement age


3. raise taxes

There are no other approaches, no other options. This is more than basic economics — it's basic metaphysics.

Armed with that:

Hillary Rodham Clinton promised retirees that if elected president she will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize the taxpayer-funded system.

Okay, no benefit cuts and no increase in the retirement age. So she's promising to raise your taxes — because she cares about you.

Just one problem: she doesn't mention taxes either:

Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue.

"Fiscal responsibility"? What kind of spineless blather is that?

no benefit cuts + no raised retirement age = tax increases
This is the moral defective who dares to claim that she represents "strong leadership"? But she's too much the coward to actually say what she means. To her the word "tax" is the political mouse that sends her shrieking atop the kitchen table like a caricature 1950s housewife?

At least the first President Bush, when he lied about "no new taxes," actually used the word "taxes" as part of the lie. He gave us "Read my lips..." — Clinton gives us "Read between the lines..."

---

There is of course another possibility: Clinton simply thinks her supporters are all morons. Hey — she's the one implying it. So scowl at her, not me. On the other hand, I reiterate my befuddlement toward those who somehow conclude that "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is the solution rather than the problem.

---

Another hasty stitch:

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda.

Liar.

---

One more, via the New York Times' blog, The Caucus:

"We need to get back to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990's when we weren't raiding the social security trust fund"

Given that Congress will certainly stay under Democratic control after the election, anyone who yearns for "the fiscal responsibility of the 1990's" must, by definition, vote Republican in 2008, since it was gridlock, not the supposed budgetary genius of Bill Clinton, that kept government spending in check from 1995-2000.

Now emphasizing the cradle:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
...
The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

As much as I yearn for the expiration of the Bush presidency, I fear, literally fear, the thought of any of the current hopeless gaggle of Democratic moral defectives taking office with a fully Democratic Congress cheering on his, or her, inevitable tax-and-spend fiscal recklessness. Why did the Republicans have to lose the Senate too? (With the odds of them also losing filibuster strength in 2008 increasing with each passing scandal.)

This is the woman who so brazenly lies about how her pervert husband was "fiscally responsible," taking credit for what was wholly attributable to gridlock, the dot.com boom and the (long-ago-squandered) "peace dividend"? This is the woman who lays claim to the legacy of "the era of big government is over"?

Meanwhile, economists might, if they thought it would do any good, point out the pesky fact that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. The solution to "economically disadvantaged children" is not paying people, especially economically disadvantaged people, to have more babies. How is this a difficult concept?

Add in the indoctrination factor: What better way to inculcate a love for, and a dependency on, the state (oops, sorry — the "village") than to point, literally from Day One, to your "baby bond" as proof of just how truly wonderful is Big Government (the era of which is, again, apparently not over). The government has loved you since the day you were born, so you should love it back until the day you die. Huxley would be humbled.

And in case you were wondering: Yes there are politicians even dumber than Senator Clinton:

"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their 18?"

The best way to offset $27,000 in debt is to go $5,000 deeper in debt? When a subprime mortgage company says that, it's "predatory lending." When a tax-and-spend hyper-liberal Democrat in Congress says it, it's "a wonderful idea."

You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

More thoughts at Catallarchy, no third solution, Greg Mankiw.

"Want a billion dollars? A cool, neat, billion dollars?"
        "Which I'll have to produce, for you to give me?"
--Atlas Shrugged

First it was newborns whom Hillary Clinton invited to suck at the government teat via her infinitely asinine "Baby Bond" proposal. Now it's entire families:

Families could get 401(k) retirement accounts and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At a cost of $20 billion - $25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.
...
Clinton said she wants to create "American Retirement Accounts" in which each family could put up to $5,000 annually in a 401(k) plan. The federal government would provide a tax cut to match the first $1,000 for any household that brings in less than $60,000 a year and 50 percent of the first $1,000 for those that make $60,000-$100,000.

A few hasty stitches:

--What basis does any Clinton supporter have for pretending that she is in any way a "moderate"? Her answer to every domestic issue, real or imagined, is to throw taxpayer money at it. This is not the behavior of a "moderate." Positioning oneself barely a millimeter to the right of John "Two Americas" Edwards and his brazen calls for class warfare does not make one a "moderate."

--On the other hand, Clinton is distinguishable from Edwards in one respect. While Edwards seeks to soak the rich, Clinton seems intent on soaking the working poor -- who, you may recall, don't save much. (Neither of course do the non-working poor. Or retirees. Or...) These "American Retirement Accounts" are -- like her "Baby Bond" nonsense -- a middle-class entitlement pure and simple.

--Is Clinton unaware that there are already a wide variety of tax-advantaged retirement vehicles? (Recall that the "match" only comes via a tax cut, not via a bona fide contribution into the account. Which of course means that it isn't really a "match" at all.) With very few exceptions, any non-wealthy individual with earned income can open an IRA or similar tax-advantaged investment vehicle any time they like. How is this new entitlement anything other than a solution in search of problem?

--Meanwhile, the real problem -- the reason the working poor don't save -- is mostly because they can't afford to. It's hard to save when one-eighth of your paycheck is confiscated by the federal government before it even reaches your pay stub. It remains unrefuted because it cannot be refuted: Anyone who claims to champion the working poor must, by definition, champion Social Security reform. What does Hillary Clinton champion?

Clinton said the accounts should not be used to replace any part of Social Security and that she is committed to addressing the long-term challenges of that program. "We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security," she said.

That is a fight I have no doubt she, or whichever Democrat ends up as our next president, will win handily.

--Apparently these accounts would somehow be, not for individuals, but for "families." However (thanks to her pervert husband), there are -- as a matter of federal law -- no such things as "gay families." Thrown under the bus by a Clinton yet again. Go figure.

My main thesis is of course not only unchanged but also reinforced by this hopeless nonsense: The cure for Republican fiscal recklessness from 2001 through 2006 will not be Democratic fiscal recklessness from 2009 through 2012. The cure ought to be libertarian principles of governance. In the alternative, gridlock would have been nice. Neither will be forthcoming any time soon.

The death of Sir Edmund Hillary is an appropriate time to remember that Hillary Clinton is a moral defective:

During a stop in Nepal while on a south Asian goodwill tour in April 1995, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a brief (and reportedly coincidental) meeting with Sir Edmund Hillary (who, along with Tenzing Norgay, became the first person to reach the summit of the world's highest mountain, Mt. Everest, in 1953) and told reporters she had been named after the famed mountain climber. The notion that Ms. Clinton's given name was inspired by the man who conquered Everest was almost certainly a bit of fiction invented for political expediency (as many critics have noted, Edmund Hillary didn't become world-famous until six years after Hillary Rodham was born)[.]

Clinton tried to concoct some gobbledygook about her mother, while pregnant, having read an article about pre-Everest Hillary:

However, how likely was Dorothy Rodham, a Chicago housewife, to have seen an article about a New Zealand mountain climber? We performed a comprehensive search of several major American newspapers (including the Chicago Tribune) and found that none of them made any mention of Edmund Hillary whatsoever prior to June 1953, so it's fair to say that the American media paid him little note prior to his successful assault on Mt. Everest that year.

Just like her pervert husband: The bigger and more obnoxious the lie, the better.

In the end, her fraud thoroughly debunked, she came up with one last spin: Her mother lied to her about it. When push came to shove, she threw her own mother under the bus.

Shame on anyone who would for a moment consider voting for this vile woman.

More thoughts at Nobody's Business.

If someone thinks they can explain this, then feel free to give it a shot in the comments:

Nevada's state teachers union and six Las Vegas area residents filed a lawsuit late Friday that could make it harder for many members of the state's huge hotel workers union to vote in the hotly contested Jan. 19 Democratic caucus in Nevada.

Quick: Do you think the teachers union and the hotel workers union are endorsing the same candidate?

The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama, a blow to Mrs. Clinton. ... The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association's deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton's Nevada Women's Leadership Council.

Okay, that part is easy to understand: It's just the Vast Clinton Wing Conspiracy doing what it does best: Throwing fellow Democrats under the bus.

As for the rest:

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party's decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state's election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

A casino is now capable of being an election district? And whatever happened to "absentee ballots"? Yet more evidence that the caucus system, if not unconstitutional, is unarguably stupid — and geared to benefit politicians rather than voters.

I pity the unfortunate federal judge who will actually have to wade into this hyperpartisan mathematical muck.

It's a bit hazardous to write on one's blog:

I've always found X a bit of a baffling phenomenon.

The hazard comes from the pesky fact that, all too often, what one actually means by that declaration is:

I am too partisan to acknowledge the objectively demonstrable legitimacy of X.

Or, worse:

I am too stupid to understand X.

Just saying.

---

And while I appreciate a lighthearted blog as much as the next guy, I don't think "Momma said wonk you out" is a particularly intellectual (or helpful) dek for a policy blog. Just saying.

I do not believe in the intrinsic superiority of "government by experts," or what I have called "scientocracy."

But neither do I believe that policy would be any better if it blindly kowtowed to the uninformed views of the Everyman. William F. Buckley's famous (if often misquoted) snark about the Cambridge phone book was cute, and perhaps correct in the context of Harvard Law School, but it is not a universal axiom of governance.

I hold an alternative view: Limit what government can do, and I become unconcerned about who's doing it.

A quick example: Another pundit bemoans "irrational" Clinton hatred:

These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the "strangeness" of her eyes ... she kills cats; she's a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).
...
If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are "supported" by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don't.

To which I commented tried to comment*:

A society that has decided, for better or worse, that the only qualification for voting is not having died for 18 years hardly has any standing to complain when such otherwise-unqualified people prove themselves as such.

The only thing that scares me more is that these people also serve as jurors.

Allowing the ignorant, the irrational or the paranoid to vote might be better than the alternative of deciding how to exclude them from voting. I think it is. But the fact that they do vote is all the more reason to constrain ex ante both what (e.g., bigot amendments) and whom ("I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all...") such people can actually vote for.

---

*The comment was never posted, either due to a technical malfunction or because Fish blocked it.

...do you want a president answering who tends to be sleep-deprived?

[W]when asked about her Bosnian whopper where she claimed she, Chelsea, Sinbad and others landed under sniper fire and had to dash to their cars without a welcoming ceremony (all claims shown to be a total fabrication by video of the event): "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke."

More:

I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."

Of course, "millions of words a day" is itself a pretty obvious "misstatement."

But the real point is that — as my favorite jurist repeatedly notes — if you just tell the truth all the time, then you don't have to worry about keeping track of what you say, because you will not make any "misstatements."

But Hillary Clinton is not now, nor has she ever been, concerned about the truth. To her (not to mention her pervert husband), lying is an art form. Especially campaign lying. They do it for its own sake — to relish the skill, creativity and expertise required to do it well, and to appreciate the resulting beauty (and power) upon its completion. This has always been the raison d'être of Clintonian politics — to see just how many lies, and how big, you can get away with.

Even on a Bosnia tarmac. Even at 3 A.M. when the phone rings.

---

Sinbad:

When commenting on Clinton's version of events, he said, "What kind of president would say, 'Hey man, I can't go because I might get shot ... but I'm gonna send my wife and daughter. Oh and take a guitar player and a comedian with you'?"

Can we elect him to something? Maybe Larry Craig's Senate seat?

---

Meanwhile:

Senator Clinton also dwelled on what she called "a crisis of confidence in our country," and portrayed herself as the candidate best able to address the economic problems of middle-income and economically struggling families.

"We need a president who can restore our confidence," she said. "We need a president who is ready on Day 1 to be commander in chief of our economy."

Unfortunately, I doubt that Clinton will retract that (sleep-depriving) comment as a "misstatement." Just like that great Clintonian non-misstatement a while back:

I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all.

Truer words were never uttered. (Via Cato@Liberty.)

You know Hillary Clinton is desperate when she starts reaching out to gays:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would defend gay rights as president and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy.
...
Clinton said she and her husband have many gay friends that they socialize with when they get the chance. "I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life," she said.

"Some of my best friends are gay..."? That's her LGBT platform? How 1962 of her...

She said that when they ask her why they can't get married, she tells them marriage is a state law. She said that fact helped defeat a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings that she said would "enshrine discrimination in the Constitution."

Liar or ignoramus -- take your pick (I'll go with "liar"). Marriage is a federal issue at least as much as a state issue. She of all people should know, for example, about federal DOMA -- since it was her pervert husband who signed it into law.

(She did vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment -- good for her -- but she didn't exactly go out of her way to point that out in the interview, as her circuitous "that fact helped defeat" language demonstrates.)

Clinton also peddled her longstanding hypocritical position that she will work to end DADT, but only after she's elected president:

Clinton also said she would [e]liminate her husband's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Asked if she could do so by a signing order connected to a military appropriations bill, Clinton said she didn't think that is possible but she would look into it and do it if it were legal.

The pesky fact that she could do far more to help end DADT now, as a sitting senator who is on the Armed Services Committee, remains her "gay rights" original sin and remains the reason why the only sane response to her panders is for gay Democrats to tell her to go to hell. Those gay Democrats who don't are barely one rung higher on the self-loathing ladder than gay Republicans.

---

One parting thought: If Clinton is so dedicated to LGBT issues, then how come there's exactly nothing about gays on her official website? Not just nothing about this one interview, mind you, but nothing about gay issues at all -- at least nothing easily locatable. She can find the bandwidth for a "Women" page, a "Veterans" page and even a "Rural America" page (and of course a "Socialized Medicine" page). But no "Gays & Lesbians" page? So much for "some of her best friends are gay."

---

Meanwhile:

Despite concerted efforts, Senator Barack Obama has not granted a formal interview to the Philadelphia Gay News. PGN, now in its 32nd year and the nation's most-honored LGBT newspaper, is taking the unusual step of displaying Obama's lack of communication to the local LGBT press, leaving blank space on the newspaper's front page where Obama's interview would have appeared, illustrating his lack of accessibility to the local gay press. Obama has not granted a formal interview to any local gay press in 1,522 days, when he spoke to the Windy City Times during his Senate race in 2004.

The revelation that Obama is, at best, a political nullity on gay rights is not new news. The only two reasonable bases for gays to vote for Obama are: (1) he's not Clinton, and (2) he's not McCain. Whether those are sufficient reasons remains an open question. (Via Outright Libertarians.)